|
|
|
|
|
BusinessWeek: January 11, 1993 |
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
The Auto Beat
Byte of the Apple
Europe Insight
Eye on Asia
Getting In
Investing Insights
The New Entrepreneur
NEXT: Innovation Tools & Trends
On Media
Technology at Work
The Tech Beat
Traveler's Check
TECHNOLOGY
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Hands On
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Car Care & Safety
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip FINANCE Investing: Europe Annual Reports Bloomberg BW50 SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth Companies: 2008 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs Rankings & Profiles |
Readers Report
FAULT DEADBEAT PARENTS, NOT NO-FAULT DIVORCE Gary S. Becker's proposed change in policy, and one befitting a University of Chicago economist, is to depend exclusively on the marketplace to work its wonders by mandating that before a divorce is granted, the consent of the woman be required ("Finding fault with no-fault divorce," Economic Viewpoint, Dec. 7). This presumably would result in the wife being able to coerce her husband into agreeing to a financial settlement of a sufficient amount to provide his wife and children with an acceptable standard of living. The more a husband wants to end a marriage, the larger the settlement would potentially be. Life can sure be simple to an economist. A major reason for the precarious financial condition of many divorced women and their children is that all too often, negotiated financial settlements, which could provide women with a decent standard of living, are not maintained by husbands. Not enough is being done to force them to abide by these agreements. Becker's proposal, while it could increase the amount of some financial settlements, would do little to address the fact that state governments collect on less than 20% of the cases of child-support nonpayment. More important, his proposal would again enable one partner to enslave the other by refusing to consent to a divorce. Lester E. Block, Past Director Program in Public Health Administration University of Minnesota Minneapolis The bottom line remains the enforcement of existing laws. How do you get deadbeats to pay? How do you get a dangerous spouse to honor court orders to stay away? How do you get an otherwise good person to visit their children? Mutual consent solves none of these. It's like saying, "Gee, that dog bit me. Maybe if we call it a cat..." Linda R. Knudsen Wichita |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |